NASA's Moon-Mars Chief Blasts 'False Claims'

by Todd Halvorson, FLORIDA TODAY | October 08, 2009 01:10pm ET

For the first time in more than a quarter-century, a new space vehicle stands ready in NASA Kennedy Space Center's 52-story Vehicle Assembly Building in Florida. The final segments of the Ares I-X rocket, including the simulated crew module and launch abort system, were stacked on Aug. 13 on a mobile launcher platform, completing the 327-foot launch vehicle and providing the first entire look of Ares I-X's distinctive shape. The Ares I-X flight test is targeted for Oct. 31.Credit: NASA

The director of NASA's
embattled moon-Mars program says President Barack Obama's human spaceflight
commission is making false claims about the advantages of alternatives and
ignoring "anything positive" about the program NASA already has spent
$9 billion on over the past five years.

In an e-mail obtained by
FLORIDA TODAY, NASA
Project Constellation Program Manager Jeff Hanley also says the committee
is "dismissive" of the recommendations of Columbia accident
investigators.

To treat astronaut crew
safety as a 'sine qua non' -- a given -- "is a cop out. . .plain and
simple," Hanley said in a candid, 3,376-word e-mail to Johnson Space
Center Director Michael Coats.

The panel was created to
review NASA's ongoing moon-Mars program and consider other options for the
agency after the shuttle's retirement. The panel decided NASA's Constellation
program is on "an
unsustainable trajectory" and Obama should consider canceling NASA's Ares
I crew launcher and instead fly astronauts on commercial rockets.

Hanley said that idea
raises significant legal issues and would put at risk future U.S. human space
exploration.

The blunt assessment of the
commission's executive summary, which was delivered to the White House on Sept.
8, comes to light as the panel holds a final public hearing today. A full
report by the 10-member committee, led by Lockheed Martin CEO Norman
Augustine, is due at the White House by the end of the month.

Efforts by e-mail and
telephone seeking comment from Augustine, executive director and chief
spokesman, were unsuccessful.

Hanley's comments
"reflect the informed engineering judgment of someone who's been living
with these issues for years," said Scott Pace, director of George
Washington University's Space Policy Institute and a former NASA associate
administrator.

"Where I might differ
is that I think the Augustine Committee was clear in saying it was not making
recommendations. Further, the document being discussed was an executive summary
so it's hard to say that evidence is lacking for various assertions as we just
don't know without the final report," Pace said.

NASA since 2004 has been on
course to complete the International Space Station and retire its shuttle fleet
by the end of 2010; develop a new U.S. crew transportation system by 2014 and
then return American astronauts to
the moon by 2020.

Project Constellation is
developing Ares rockets and Orion spacecraft as part of that mission, but the
presidential panel said it doubted NASA could
meet those goals on time. And the panel suggested the commercial industry
might be able to deliver crew transportation services faster and cheaper.

"This group of smart
people has looked at the riskiness of the commercial providers compared to the
riskiness of NASA, and apparently come to the conclusion that the risks are
comparable," John Logsdon, a space policy expert at the Smithsonian
Institution's National Air and Space Museum, told FLORIDA TODAY earlier this
year.

"They've looked
closely at this and seem to have come to the conclusion that we are at a point
in the evolution of space transportation where a commercial provider could
balance risk, cost and profit and make a business - with, it should be added,
significant help from the government."

Hanley is not so sure.

In the e-mail and telephone
interviews Wednesday, Hanley said U.S. commercial launch services have not
demonstrated they can to fly astronauts safely and reliably.

It's unclear whether the
companies have the intellectual capital to develop complex crew escape systems
-- a job not undertaken since the Apollo project, he said.

And it's unclear whether
the U.S. government or a commercial crew transportation company would be
legally liable for property damage or loss of life in the event of a
Challenger- or Columbia-like
disaster.

"How could NASA
blindly 'trust' them to 'get it right' and then indemnify them for any loss of
life?" Hanley said in the e-mail to Coats.

Hanley raised other concerns.

On the
development of a heavy-lift launcher:

The committee noted that
the Ares
I launcher "has the advantage of projected very high ascent crew
safety" but claimed its development would delay the Saturn V-class Ares V.

"Great heavy
sigh," Hanley wrote. "This paragraph demonstrates either an
intentional mischaracterization of the facts or a clear lack of understanding
of Constellation."

The Ares I first-stage -- a
five-segment version of the shuttle's solid rocket booster -- also will be used
on the Ares V.

The Ares I second stage
engine -- an upgraded version of a Saturn V engine -- will propel the upper
stage of the Ares V.

On the
potential use of upgraded versions of existing Atlas 5 or Delta 4 Heavy
rockets for crew or cargo transport:

The committee claimed the
use of these rockets could potentially lower development and operations costs.

"This is a claim
unsupported and unsubstantiated with any assessment or data," Hanley wrote.

Video
- NASA's Ares I-X Test Flight Unveiled

Video
- Back to the Moon with NASA's Constellation

Video
Show - NASA's Vision for Humans in Space

Published under license
from FLORIDA TODAY. Copyright ? 2009 FLORIDA TODAY. No portion of this material
may be reproduced in any way without the written consent of FLORIDA TODAY.